Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step

How all due process got dismantled in rape accusations. Feminst power at its best.

Feminism overrides the constitution! Amazing! Rules of due process, presumption of innocence, “innocent until proven guilty”,  are fundamental or constitutional law in most countries. Feminists managed to override  constitutional guarantees, as they managed to change thousand year old definitions of legal terms like “rape” and “child”  (see: Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance ).

Highly recommended reading:
Domestic violence fairytales threaten constitutional protections
Are Domestic Violence Policies Respecting
Our Fundamental Freedoms?

All the following content was shamelessly copied from falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-presumptively-innocent-are-given.html I could not say it any better, and shortening it is a pity.

  1. Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. The sexual grievance industry insisted that rape was underreported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. So we kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve “the problem.”
  2. First, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration, which de facto served to flip the old law on its head: now, women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys are arrested based solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girl if they can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence.
    That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that forbade almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.
  3. That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who misunderstood the acquiescence of a woman were sent to prison.
  4. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape.  Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent.  Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.
  5. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws (in the UK and a handful of US states) that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation.
  6. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence of their innocence has long disappeared.
    Wait, there is more! This article continues! That still was not enough. Keep reading and click here »
    Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step
    » continues here »

Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent

Change.org silences dissent

Hi Stupidity, it seems that you have been on a bit of a crusade the past day or so on lots of posts from the last month related to rape.

Call it an anti-crusade. Feminists have been on a very successful crusade to re-define language and change legal due process. So a vengeful women’s lone unproven accusation can instantly get the real victim, the falsely accused, into jail. Unlike all other crimes, where proof or multiple witnesses are needed.

Specifically, you have posted fairly demeaning dismissals of victims and the definition of rape.

Demeaning dismissals of linguistic definitions. That is how far we have gotten. Even definitions of terms can not be questioned. The essence of taboos to perpetuate witch hunts and make sure the masses are deceived by misleading perverted re-definition of terms like “rape”

Your comments are not particularly welcome here. Rape is a serious offense and it is incredibly traumatizing for it’s victims. I have removed all of your comments, links and have blocked your account before you post any more comments which would cause pain to real victims of real crimes.

And real victims of real rape get confused with “victims” that consented to fondling!? That is demeaning. And the “perpetrator” of consensual acts then gets gang-raped in prison, because of a pervasive attitude that (falsely convicted) rapists deserve getting raped. That is pain to real victims of real prison rape.

‘Women’s rights at change.org perpetuate manipulative language distortion to foster feminist political goals

It is essential for a witch hunt that dissent gets silenced, made taboo.  Change.org’s feminist watchdogs invoke emotional terms (“cause real pain to real victims of real crimes”) in order to avoid discussing the issues and silence dissent easily.  This is the central issue of Human-Stupidity.com: how Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, “stupid”. And self deception makes the censor believe s/he is a liberal person.

Thus, of course, the real pain caused to real victims of witch hunts is totally ignored.  Guys who spend years in jail for consensual sex with an adolescent, or for a unproven false rape accusation. And who get special attention from prison rapists who like to prey on alleged rapists in order to exert cruel and usual punishment.

But my main issue here is not even sex laws. It is manipulative Abuse of Language to deceive the masses. The concerted world wide conspiracy to use the word “rape” for “seducing an adolescent” or for “indecently fondling a minor”. And the perverted inversion of due legal process. Alleged sex offenders are “guilty until proven innocent” and any accusation by a lone alleged victim is taken as proof of a crime.

Change.org dispute: full text follows here

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent” »
Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor &…
» continues here »

Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language

Abused Language: When a “rape” is not a rape

“Fondling a child”, or “consensual sex with an adolescent” nowadays can be called “rape”, in press reports, even in legal code (“statutory rape”).
This purposeful confusion created by the dilusion of the word “rape” helps to whip up punishment frenzy for crimes of “adolescent seduction” or “child fondling” at the expense of banalizing real forceful violent penetrating non-consensual rape.

So the word “rape” is abusively re-defined to serve an agenda: to make smaller transgressions look like heinous crimes.

The entire World Press,  the United Nations, everyone swallowed the bait and became manipulated! Amazing!

Similarly,  “adolescent nudity” no can be called “child porn”.  Defining 17 year olds as children has the collateral effect that now there is no word for real children of 12 and under, as there is no word  left for real rape.  This confusion must have a manipulative motive, as there is no logical need to change the meaning of words that had a clear definition for centuries.

Real meaning of the word “rape”

What do most people understand by the word “rape”? What was the meaning of “rape” for centuries? Non-consensual intercourse with penetration, usually involving violence or threats.

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,[1][2][3] a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity.[4][5]

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.

Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape.

Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl

A barman who admitted raping a 12 year old girl he met through a social networking site has walked free from court after convincing a judge he was tricked into believing she was 19. Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl (telegraph.co.uk)
Man who had sex with girl, 12, admits rape but is freed after woman judge says he was ‘duped’ into thinking she was 19

Shocking, is it not? He raped a girl and was set free because he was mistaken about her age! It is ok to rape a girl if she is 19 years old?

Well, he did not REALLY rape her. If she is 19 years old then consensual sex, initiated by the girl who brought the condoms, is not called rape.  Dear Reader, haven’t you understood that any sex with a 12 year old is rape?  Our language has changed in the last 25 years! But, of course, this is on purpose. Once you understand that rape is not rape, the intended shock effect gets lost.

So the 12 year old was eager to have sex with him, actively initiated sex and purposefully deceived the barman into thinking that she was 19.  So, miraculously, he was freed. Doesn’t sound so shocking any more.

See Why I hate statutory Rape Laws | A Public Defender

After breaking marriage vow, sex becomes rape

Having a sexual relationship with a woman with a false promise of marriage can also be termed as rape. The case was being heard in a Delhi Court and it involved a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbour. The man was found guilty of rape and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the present case, Chhotey Lal, the convict and father of six children, had eloped with his neighbour in New Delhi in September 2004, and took her to far away places like Jaipur and Chandigarh. According to the girl, the duo established sexual relations after Lal assured her that he would marry her ‘very soon’. Meanwhile, the girl’s father lodged a ‘missing’ report with the police. The police detained Lal and the girl in March 2005 at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Terminal when they were returning to Delhi. Chhotey Lal was prosecuted for abducting the girl and having sexual relationships with her on false pretext.

“The so-called consent under a false promise to marriage is no consent,” additional sessions judge Mahavir Singhal said.

Highlighting the difference between ‘will’ and ‘consent’, the court said that a nod for sexual relations obtained by a man on the false pretext would not amount to a ‘legal or valid’ consent to save him from punishment for rape.

The Court observed that, even if the woman is assumed to be a willing partner in having a physical relationship, that the accused had no intention to marry her would make it a case where consent was given under misconception of facts, nullifying the efficacy of the nod.
Rape by promising marriage in India

Adolescent raped repeatedly?

Due to the language confusion, we really can not know if she was raped, or more likely, seduced. But most women don’t get raped repeatedly on various days.

In 1997, 15-year-old Tina Anderson became pregnant after being raped repeatedly by an older man she knew from church. Shockingly, when her pastor found out, he forced her to apologize in front of the entire congregation in Concord, New Hampshire, and then promptly helped whisk her away to live in Colorado.

According to Tina, the first time she was raped by Ernest Willis, it was in the backseat of car after he’d given her a driving lesson. She didn’t tell anyone because she was terrified that she’d be blamed. After being raped by Willis again, Tina became pregnant.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/ teenager_forced_to_apologize_to_her_church_for_being_raped

Did she get “raped” or seduced? we don’t know

What does the average reader of this article think? They guy attacked the girl in a dark alley and had sex with her under the threat of violence.  Strange, though, that he raped her repeatedly on different days.
Now it is amazing that feminists and moralists managed to put such manipulative language even into penal codes. It is easier to promote your agenda with misleading language. “Teenager forced to appologize for being seduced” does not sound so shocking.  The word manipulation must  be planned and purposeful.

Language confusion obfuscates facts

So no matter if you think sex with underage should be punished, I hope you agree that the truth should be said and that manipulative language should be abolished.
By the way, Ernest Willis is a child rapist. Because according to new definitions of child pornography, a child now is anyone under 18. The United Nations, the US, and Europe have adopted that definition.

Whoppi Goldberg differentiates “rape-rape” and non-violent so called “rape”

Hollywood has rallied behind Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland over the weekend, with the actor Whoopi Goldberg suggesting that whatever he was guilty of it wasn’t “rape-rape”.

As a guest on The View chatshow on US television, she said: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying.’ So that’s why he left.”

Polanski was not guilty of ‘rape-rape’, says Whoopi Goldberg

Age discimination: why is a 15 year old capable to consent to sex with a 16 year old but not with a 35 year old?

Then we can disagree on the last point: if a 15 year old can decide who to have sex with. Interestingly, she can decide to have sex with a 16 year old. How come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?

Mandatory psychological counselling before underage sex?

Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? what about legalizing sex with underage girls, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. And it would be a good idea even for sex between consenting teenagers. So there would be no age discrimination!

Click on “more” for the rest of the story ……..

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language” »
Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not…
» continues here »